It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You're welcome to believe what you wish, but take the issue of slavery out of the equation, and I assure you that those states would not have seceeded that time
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Once again, you have addressed this issue with a hasty generalization.
The topic at hand concerns why the slave owning states felt the right to secede...
And it was absolutely NOT because they feared any actions from Lincoln.
A Republican victory in the presidential elections would put an end to the South's control of it's own destiny. Even Southern moderates warned that the South could not remain in the Union if Lincoln won.
During the presidential election of 1860, Southern leaders told the South to secede from the Union if Lincoln were to win the election because they believed Lincoln was an abolitionist.
In the days following the election of President Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina Gov. William Henry Gist was characteristically blunt: “The only alternative left, in my judgment, is the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.”
"[Lincoln's election was] an avowed declaration of war upon the institutions, the rights and the interests of the South."
~ John Archer Elmore, Alabama's commissioner to South Carolina, December 17, 1860
"This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery; or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us. . . . secession is inevitable . . . the part of Mississippi is chosen, she will never submit to the principles and policy of this Black Republican Administration. She had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political, and social equality with the negro race."
~ William L. Harris, Mississippi's commissioner to Georgia, December 17, 1860
Immediately after the election of President Lincoln, Gov. John J. Pettus issued a call for a special session of the legislature of the state to meet in Jackson, Nov. 26, 1860. In accordance with the advice of the representatives of the state in both branches of Congress, who met in Jackson four days before the legislature assembled, the governor inserted in his message to that body a recommendation that it call a convention for the purpose of withdrawing from the Union
This was the message that governor John Pettus of Mississippi delivered to his state legislature on November 26, less tha 3 weeks following Lincoln's election win: "Black republican politics and free negro morals - forces that would transform Mississippi"... "immediate steps needed to be taken"
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
It was INACTION from Lincoln.
As I have said about 4 times now, the slave owning states felt justified with secession because they saw reprehensible inaction by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government was turning a blind eye to the non slave owning states enacting laws that were in direct violation of Article 4 of the mutually agreed upon, binding, and de jure US Constitution.
The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States. It created a mid-century low point for tariffs. It amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering tax rates around 17 percent.
Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter of Virginia authored the Tariff of 1857. The bill was a response to a federal budget surplus during the mid 1850s. Hunter planned to distribute this surplus in the form of a tax cut. Supporters of the bill came mostly from Southern and agricultural states. These states tended to depend on exports and thus were inclined to support free trade.
historical accounts and links to support this nonsense please.
The majority of historians agree on this
Originally posted by krossfyter
Ill stick with the dallas cowboys even though i cant stand jerry jones. So tell me what books/articles/material should i read if i want to find out the TRUTH about the civil war. No propaganda please.
Originally posted by blueorder
superb thread, and may the spirit of the South indeed rise again over the oppressive and stifling federal forces,......Obama is a fitting figure head
There's a problem with this argument incase you hadn't noticed. Lincoln only assumed office on March 4th, 1861. Secession started as far back as December 24th, 1860. So what inaction of Lincoln do you speak of? What exactly did he do in office to offend the south, before assuming office at all?
Lincoln only assumed office on March 4th, 1861. Secession started as far back as December 24th, 1860.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
You are very skilled in this realm,
Thank you for affirming my premise that the election of Lincoln was not the reason for the slave owning states wishing to secede.
I have been saying all along that the election of Lincoln was not the match that lit the fire of secession,
Before secession, residents of Northern states had no interest in a war (Why rock the boat?), but secession in response to Lincoln’s election changed everything: Allowing any state simply to leave when its voters did not like the results of an election undercut any basis for self-government (elections only work, after all, if we all agree to abide by them even when we don’t like the results), and therefore could not be countenanced. And so, as Lincoln would put it, the war came.
Which is not to say it was inevitable no matter who won. Nor is it to say that no conflict would have erupted if anyone else had won. But it is to say that war coming exactly when, where and how it did was the product of long-term causes and immediate triggers, and the election of Lincoln was, without question, an immediate trigger
The reason that the slave owning states sought secession was because the non slave owning states were not being held accountable for violating the binding constitutional agreement
Because Lincoln was a supporter of abolitionist causes his election was a signal that the inaction of the previous President would continue,
And this idea of secession was discussed prior to Lincoln.
The Southern states were compliant to the binding constitutional agreement
South Carolina still did not hold popular votes for presidential electors. The state's electors backed Breckenridge.
That did not affirm your premise at all. I already gave you a number of sources pointing to a number of southern representitives, governors, warning of secession, if Lincoln were to win the elections. Secession hinged largely on the fact that the Republican party won the elections and the fears of what "rights" especially in the case of the institution of slavery, would be stripped under a Republican administration. The South had no intention of giving Lincoln a chance under his administration, there are numerous references from that era proving this.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The opinions of the Southern representatives and Governors, and the warnings of secession that you have quoted do not represent the actual reason for Confederate secession.
Let's look at South Carolina's declaration of secession.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
This is an important quote because it forms the basis for the right of secession.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The abolitionists had one goal- to destroy the constitutionally guaranteed institution of slavery
so, while slavery was an issue, it wasn't the primary one, not by a longshot.
(opening statement) - Gentlemen: We have met here under circumstances more solemn than any of us have ever been placed in before. No one, it seems to me, is duly impressed with the magnitude of the work before him, who does not, at the same time, feel that he is about to enter upon the gravest and most solemn act which has fallen to the lot of this generation to accomplish. It is no less than our fixed determination to throw off a Government to which we have been accustomed, and to provide new safeguards for our future security. If anything has been decided by the elections which sent us here, it is, that South Carolina must dissolve her connection with the Confederacy as speedily as possible.
In the progress of this movement we have two great dangers to fear overtures from without, and precipitation within. I trust that the door is now forever closed to all further connection with our Northern confederates; for what guarantees can they offer us, more strictly guarded, or under higher, sanctions, than the present written compact between us ? And did that sacred instrument protect us from the jealousy and aggressions of the North, commenced forty years ago, which resulted in the Missouri Compromise ?
Did the Constitution protect us from the cupidity of the Northern people, who, for thirty-five years, have imposed the burden of supporting the General Government chiefly on the industry of the South ? Did it save us from Abolition petitions, designed to annoy and insult us, in the very halls of our Federal Congress ? Did it enable us to obtain a single foot of the soil acquired in the war with Mexico, where the South furnished three-fourths of the money, two-thirds of the men, and four-fifths of the graves ? Did it oppose any obstacle to the erection of California into a free-soil State, without any previous territorial existence, without any defined boundaries, or any census of her population ? Did it throw any protection around the Southern settlers of Kansas, when the soil of that territory was invaded by the emissaries of Emigrant Aid Societies, in a crusade preached from Northern pulpits, when churchmen and women contributed Sharp’s rifles and Colt’s revolvers, to swell the butchery of Southern men ? And has not that Constitution been trodden under foot by almost every Northern State, in their Ordinances nullifying all laws made for the recovery of fugitive slaves, by which untold millions of property have been lost to the South ?
Let us be no longer duped by paper securities. Written Constitutions are worthless, unless they are written, at the same time, in the hearts, and founded on the interests of a people; and as there is no common bond of sympathy or interest between the North and the South, all efforts to preserve this Union will not only be fruitless, but fatal to the less numerous section. The other danger to which I referred, may arise from too great impatience on the part of our people to precipitate the issue, in not waiting until they can strike with the authority of law.
At the moment of inaugurating a great movement like the present, I trust that we will go forward, and not be diverted from our purpose by influences from without. In the outset of this movement I can offer you no better motto than Danton’s, at the commencement of the French Revolution : ” To dare ! and again to dare ! And without end to dare ! ”
also from same source ...
What are the grievances listed here?
1) The Missouri Compromise — which limited slavery to below the 36 30 line.
2) The federal government is funded by taxes on the South.
3) Southerners (that is, slave-owners) didn’t get any of the land acquired from Mexico.
4) California was admitted as a free state.
5) Southern (that is, slave-owning) Kansas settlers were attacked by abolitionists.
6) Personal liberty laws in the North impede enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law.
One of the six is arguably unrelated to slavery.
you'll have to read the rest
Four days earlier the Democratic party convention in Charleston had done an extraordinary thing. Deliberately, the delegates had thrown away the forthcoming presidential election. They had met to confirm Sen. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, the only Democrat who could have reached out beyond the slaveholding South and gathered up enough electoral votes from the border states to win. But insurrection had been in the air at Charleston. The smooth-talking Democrat from Alabama, William Yancey, who took pride in being known as “the Prince of the FireEaters,” had his mind not on success within the political system but on secession from the Union. With Yancey calling the shots, the convention turned away from Douglas and refused to nominate anybody. The party would eventually put up two candidates, Douglas and Vice-President John Breckinridge, while a hastily formed splinter group calling itself the Constitutional Union party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.
Yancey had what he wanted. The fragmented Democrats would most likely lose to a Republican committed to abolition. The South would have no choice but to secede.
So the way was left open for the Republicans. A political organization that had been stitched together five years earlier by grafting snippets of Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, Abolitionists, and runaway Democrats onto the carcass of the old, moribund Whig party had the Presidency within its grasp for the first time. In 1856, with no reasonable chance of victory, the Republicans had nominated the romantic adventurer John Frémont, and lost. Now it was time for a seasoned man of politics. That man was Seward.